Compare two different foods side-by-side by nutrients, energy, and quality scores.
The CSV contains energy and nutrients per 100 g for these two records only. Missing measurements remain blank rather than zero. Model scores and personal health conclusions are not exported.
Share your experiences or ask your questions.
Energy
480 kcal
Score
57 / 100
Kereviz tohumu has a higher nutrition quality score (57) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
281 vs 480(+70.8%)
Score Diff
43 vs 57(+32.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kereviz tohumu
Higher energy
Kereviz tohumu
Score leader
Kereviz tohumu
Nutrient split
9 - 14 (tie: 0)
This chart shows energy per 100 g for both foods.
Each axis is normalized to 0-100; the outer shape indicates relative dominance on that nutrient.
Green/blue bars indicate first food advantage, orange bars indicate second food advantage.
Ancho biberi and Kereviz tohumu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Ancho biberi has 281.0 kcal and Kereviz tohumu has 480.0 kcal. The difference is 199.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 43 and 57. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
23 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Ancho biberi | Kereviz tohumu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 1317 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.33 mg | 0.41 mg | +24.2% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.92 mg | 0.22 mg | -76.1% |
| B6 Vitamini | 2.14 mg | 0.5 mg | -76.6% |
| Bakir | — | 0.4 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 15800 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 4.1 mg | 7.1 mg | +73.2% |
| Demir | 4.13 mg | 41.6 mg | +907.3% |
| Diyet lifi | 23.1 g | 11.6 g | -49.8% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 3.82 mg | 0.9 mg | -76.4% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 480 kcal | — |
| Folat DFE | 58 µg | 245 µg | +322.4% |
| Fosfor | 201 mg | 454 mg | +125.9% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 29.3 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 148 mg | 1240 mg | +737.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 51.44 g | 44 g | -14.5% |
| Magnezyum | 88 mg | 297 mg | +237.5% |
| Mangan | — | 8.6 mg | — |
| Niasin | 7.8 mg | 4.1 mg | -47.4% |
| Potasyum | 2589 mg | 1300 mg | -49.8% |
| Protein | 11.86 g | 17.8 g | +50.1% |
| Selenyum | — | 6.2 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 44 mg | 160 mg | +263.6% |
| Su | 14.5 g | 8.04 g | -44.6% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.42 g | 2.1 g | +47.9% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.94 g | 11.2 g | +1091.5% |
| Toplam yağ | 8.2 g | 25.2 g | +207.3% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.12 g | 7 g | +69.9% |
| Toplam Şeker | 31.8 g | 2.9 g | -90.9% |
| Çinko | 1.4 mg | 5.8 mg | +314.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ancho biberi and Kereviz tohumu.
Ancho biberi has less energy per 100 g (281 kcal versus 480 kcal).
For measured Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri, Ancho biberi has 0.94 g and Kereviz tohumu has 11.2 g per 100 g. The table shows other nutrients separately.
The score summarizes this site's nutrient model. It does not establish that one food is healthier or suitable for everyone. Scores: Ancho biberi 43, Kereviz tohumu 57.
Energy and nutrient values in the table are per 100 g. Actual intake changes with serving size.
Data Sources
Records may come from different sources. Check each food page for source and preparation details; do not treat missing measurements as zero.
Analytical Methodology
The scoring algorithm is a scale of 100 based on nutrient density and macro/micro component balance.